So we are going to have another weekend of people going for yet another one last bender before Boris imposes harsher restrictions.
If you are going to do it, you decide, you annouce it, you don't brief the media and the wait a week.
The thing is we are not (thankfully) a dictatorship. Leaks happen, especially when the Government is in regular conversation about these measures with the Mayors of the North who all happen to be Labour and are speaking to the media.
It sounds like the decision hasn't been finalised but its not really possible to keep that something is coming a secret.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, what the Mayors are saying to the media is that the Government ISN'T in regular (or any other) conversation with them.
The government isn´t in communication with the people either, except for spoof messages from the spoof prime minister.
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, a la LadyG's 'reasonable worst case' rule of thumb. I'd have expected media chatter if it was all go for November, given the leakyness of everything else in government. Having said that, if I was in charge I'd certainly want to manage expectations and keep schtum even if everything was going well.
Nottingham will have given the mancs a run for their money on the One Last Piss Up Stakes. The local council implored people not to go out this weekend with their mates and have one last hurrah.
Council leaders may as well have held the pub doors open for people...
So we are going to have another weekend of people going for yet another one last bender before Boris imposes harsher restrictions.
If you are going to do it, you decide, you annouce it, you don't brief the media and the wait a week.
The thing is we are not (thankfully) a dictatorship. Leaks happen, especially when the Government is in regular conversation about these measures with the Mayors of the North who all happen to be Labour and are speaking to the media. It sounds like the decision hasn't been finalised but its not really possible to keep that something is coming a secret.
I assume that this decision is timed to allow for it to go through the HOC hence the delay
And of course for labour mayors and politicians the money is never enough
With all due respect, it's nothing to do with Labour mayors and politicians, it's to do with ordinary low-paid people. They struggle to get by as it is on low/minimum wages; on two thirds of their wages, they will not be able to pay all their bills. I suspect that a lot of the northern Tory MPs are equally, though discreetly, concerned about this as well.
"I know it’s tempting fate to mention the idea, foolish to entertain it, mad to expect it, but the possibility of a landslide is now real.
And all this changes a huge amount. A Biden win would be a reprieve for the country; a Biden landslide would be an American miracle.
Unlike anything else, it would cauterize the wound of Trump, preventing further infection. It would say to posterity: we made this hideous mistake, for understandable reasons, but after four years, we saw what we did and decisively changed course. It would turn the Trump era of nihilism, tribalism and cruelty into a cautionary tale of extremism, illiberalism and, above all, failure."
Spot on from Sullivan. A clear rejection of the man and everything about him is what is needed for America to regain its self-respect.
From that extract it seems it is rooted in the notion that Trump is the problem rather than the Republican party as a whole.
The GOP is sick, Trump is only a symptom not the cause.
Lets be realistic, it is not even the GOP, it is a large chunk of the electorate and their beliefs. Trump mostly moved the GOP to where its voters are and were. His vulgar style will be replaced if he loses bigly, but the fake news and extreme division will continue.
Exactly, a huge chunk of GOP supporters would like segregation back on the statute books.
The GOP senior politicians, rather than trying to lead the people away from that view instead nudge and wink and coddle the racists.
Trump won the Nom by getting rid of the nudge and wink part. And my pick for 2024 Tom Cotton is primed and ready to repeat.
A lot of the issue there was middle class white Californians angry that their children were not getting university places in the state's university system because they were being reserved for African-American and Hispanic students.
White liberal middle class parents voting for their own interests above all - who would have thought it.....?
The irony is, when they repealed it, they then realised that Asian-Americans were taking all the places because they were getting the highest grands.
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
Technically it is triple blinding if the statisticians being fed results by the researchers don't know who is who either.
As to "What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner," the future is unknowable. It really is. Everyone in the world except the sociopathic doomsayers has all the motivation in the world to jolly us along with "Yes, we are nearly there" to prevent unrest, keep the shareholders happy etc, and I'd expect them to say what they are saying quite irrespective of their actual expectations. Compare the mask situation back in the spring: very highly respected medics are now admitting that they lied to us for the common good by saying masks don't help the public, when actually they help plenty and the plan was to stop a run on them.
So we are going to have another weekend of people going for yet another one last bender before Boris imposes harsher restrictions.
If you are going to do it, you decide, you annouce it, you don't brief the media and the wait a week.
The thing is we are not (thankfully) a dictatorship. Leaks happen, especially when the Government is in regular conversation about these measures with the Mayors of the North who all happen to be Labour and are speaking to the media.
It sounds like the decision hasn't been finalised but its not really possible to keep that something is coming a secret.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, what the Mayors are saying to the media is that the Government ISN'T in regular (or any other) conversation with them.
The government isn´t in communication with the people either, except for spoof messages from the spoof prime minister.
I always enjoy Hancock's Half Hour. Not sure I am any the wiser about the government's strategy after one though.
What does Trumpism leave behind once Trump is no longer there?
What does Brexit leave behind once BoZo is no longer there?
Brexit is owned by the Conservative party, not just Boris Johnson. I guess the GOP owns Trump in the same way, though. It has moved a long way from George Bush, let alone Ronald Reagan, that is for sure! But I suppose you could say the same about the Tories, given that in the space of just a few years they have abandoned business, farmers, the rule of law, the Union and most of what else they used to claim to stand for.
The Tories still win farmers and rural areas (even in Scotland) ad since their foundation the Tories have always been the party of the landed gentry and rural areas in terms of core support.
Indeed the Tories emerged in the 17th century even before the Act of Union as the most pro Monarchy and pro Anglican Church party with its core support amongst the landed gentry, the Whigs (the descendants of today's LDs) were the party of trade and the merchant classes and nonconformist and Presbyterian Protestants.
People who are involved with trade and the merchant classes and nonconformist and Presbyterian Protestants really ought to come back to the Lib Dems then. Today´s Conservative Party has no time for them.
But Mr HY, how it is possible for the Whigs to be the descendents of today´s LDs? I think you are a bit confused today....
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I'd say 40%+. You have reminded me I need to give a full explanation why (yes, all the posts this morning have not been the full explanation...)
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I sensed you`ve been resisting a reposte to Mr Ed all morning. Couldn`t help it in the end could you?
- We need to keep a line of communication open, me and Ed.
Finger in the air reaction - closing the pubs or stopping them from serving booze has gone down very badly and if Boris does it here in England it will also go down very badly. It's definitely among the worst policies I've seen. I think the government should have stood firm and not introduced measures to help closures and also allow them to open as normal in England and taken off the restriction on opening hours. It would have forced Nicola to find the money herself to support such an idiotically destructive policy, now the taxpayer is supporting this folly.
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I sensed you`ve been resisting a reposte to Mr Ed all morning. Couldn`t help it in the end could you?
- We need to keep a line of communication open, me and Ed.
Exactly @Kinablu, this site is like Lisbon or Switzerland in World War II
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I sensed you`ve been resisting a reposte to Mr Ed all morning. Couldn`t help it in the end could you?
- We need to keep a line of communication open, me and Ed.
Exactly @Kinablu, this site is like Lisbon or Switzerland in World War II
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I know that wasn't aimed at me but I'd say 538 is about right.
The only thing is that I've played enough dice games to know that for a critical die roll, rolling a 1 when you only need a 2+ is entirely possible. So nothing is certain yet.
Always happy to hear your assessment. And of course -
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, a la LadyG's 'reasonable worst case' rule of thumb. I'd have expected media chatter if it was all go for November, given the leakyness of everything else in government. Having said that, if I was in charge I'd certainly want to manage expectations and keep schtum even if everything was going well.
Double-blind means it can't really leak.
It is a case of there being no news until there is news. That news can either be a successful trial, a failure of a trial, or a failure due to problems within the trial (eg side effects). That the latter failure hasn't occured is good news, but until the trial ends we won't know if it has been successful or a failure.
Just looking at the top of the Guardian's page, who would you say is the more Orange of the two? I'd say Biden is more a traditional Orange colour while Trump is a bit more on the blood Orange variety:
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I sensed you`ve been resisting a reposte to Mr Ed all morning. Couldn`t help it in the end could you?
- We need to keep a line of communication open, me and Ed.
Exactly @Kinablu, this site is like Lisbon or Switzerland in World War II
I think Lewis & Harris have been Covid free for a few months, presumably the basis for it going ahead.
Which raises the question. How do you get 3% of the vote on a 37% turnout where everyone knows each other and virtually nobody lives? There is an O'Donnell feeling unloved this morning.
Perhaps everyone knowing each other is the problem? My gran was from Lewis and had a phrase for a dubious person, 'he's not quite the clean potato'.
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, a la LadyG's 'reasonable worst case' rule of thumb. I'd have expected media chatter if it was all go for November, given the leakyness of everything else in government. Having said that, if I was in charge I'd certainly want to manage expectations and keep schtum even if everything was going well.
Double-blind means it can't really leak.
It is a case of there being no news until there is news. That news can either be a successful trial, a failure of a trial, or a failure due to problems within the trial (eg side effects). That the latter failure hasn't occured is good news, but until the trial ends we won't know if it has been successful or a failure.
Back in June I heard one eminent talking head state that the more effective the vaccine the earlier it's efficacy would reach statistical significance.
So it was possible that we would hear in September that it was effective, if it was very effective, but if it was only partially effective then it would take longer for the signal to emerge from the statistical noise.
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
Technically it is triple blinding if the statisticians being fed results by the researchers don't know who is who either.
As to "What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner," the future is unknowable. It really is. Everyone in the world except the sociopathic doomsayers has all the motivation in the world to jolly us along with "Yes, we are nearly there" to prevent unrest, keep the shareholders happy etc, and I'd expect them to say what they are saying quite irrespective of their actual expectations. Compare the mask situation back in the spring: very highly respected medics are now admitting that they lied to us for the common good by saying masks don't help the public, when actually they help plenty and the plan was to stop a run on them.
Indeed there are people trying to seek optimism. But as for the trials I've not seen any sign that the end of the trial has been delayed. Indeed with cases increasing its possible that the end of the trial could come sooner since it relies upon getting enough 'events' and when there is little presence of the virus in the community there are little opportunities for events.
As to masks I think they genuinely didn't realise cloth masks would help. They could have advised cloth masks much quicker, since they don't come from medical stocks. Medical grade masks absolutely they wanted to hold onto but then that's continued too.
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I'd say 40%+. You have reminded me I need to give a full explanation why (yes, all the posts this morning have not been the full explanation...)
Ok thanks. So slightly less than evens. I just wanted to pin you down because the following 2 statements are different -
(i) Mr Ed is predicting a Trump win. He thinks it is more likely than a Biden win.
(ii) Mr Ed thinks a Biden win is more likely but believes Trump has a great chance.
Wasn't it leaked by the local council? That's where the scoop came from.
No, the sequence of events is wrong, and Starmer right. As it usually does, the government floated their plans via the Telegraph and other favoured outlets on Thursday, before the council leaders were consulted.
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, a la LadyG's 'reasonable worst case' rule of thumb. I'd have expected media chatter if it was all go for November, given the leakyness of everything else in government. Having said that, if I was in charge I'd certainly want to manage expectations and keep schtum even if everything was going well.
Double-blind means it can't really leak.
It is a case of there being no news until there is news. That news can either be a successful trial, a failure of a trial, or a failure due to problems within the trial (eg side effects). That the latter failure hasn't occured is good news, but until the trial ends we won't know if it has been successful or a failure.
Yes, the whole point of a double-blind trial is that no-one involved knows who got which treatment, until after the results have been compiled.
There will be a data monitor team who do this, and they’re not involved in the medical aspects of the trial.
At the end, the two teams meet up and hand the data to the science team so they can produce their conclusions. Before then, no-one knows anything so we won’t see leaks.
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, a la LadyG's 'reasonable worst case' rule of thumb. I'd have expected media chatter if it was all go for November, given the leakyness of everything else in government. Having said that, if I was in charge I'd certainly want to manage expectations and keep schtum even if everything was going well.
Double-blind means it can't really leak.
It is a case of there being no news until there is news. That news can either be a successful trial, a failure of a trial, or a failure due to problems within the trial (eg side effects). That the latter failure hasn't occured is good news, but until the trial ends we won't know if it has been successful or a failure.
Back in June I heard one eminent talking head state that the more effective the vaccine the earlier it's efficacy would reach statistical significance.
So it was possible that we would hear in September that it was effective, if it was very effective, but if it was only partially effective then it would take longer for the signal to emerge from the statistical noise.
Which means the trials are only double blinded, if people are monitoring statistical significance in real time. So lots of people know what's going on.
The problem with this Government is its governing by opinion poll. They don't make opinion, they follow it. This is why they leak ideas to the press and see how the public responds.
Maybe that works for Brexit.
The problem is that in a pandemic it doesn't because if people don't follow the rules, or ignore the advice, people die. This is the wrong Government with the wrong leadership in the wrong time.
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, a la LadyG's 'reasonable worst case' rule of thumb. I'd have expected media chatter if it was all go for November, given the leakyness of everything else in government. Having said that, if I was in charge I'd certainly want to manage expectations and keep schtum even if everything was going well.
Double-blind means it can't really leak.
It is a case of there being no news until there is news. That news can either be a successful trial, a failure of a trial, or a failure due to problems within the trial (eg side effects). That the latter failure hasn't occured is good news, but until the trial ends we won't know if it has been successful or a failure.
Back in June I heard one eminent talking head state that the more effective the vaccine the earlier it's efficacy would reach statistical significance.
So it was possible that we would hear in September that it was effective, if it was very effective, but if it was only partially effective then it would take longer for the signal to emerge from the statistical noise.
Indeed but by the summer it was already said that as the prevalence of the virus within the UK had been reduced so much then the trial was not expected to end before November, as the virus was too low in the UK to have as many cases happen.
There have been further trials launched overseas, but I believe they were launched later so were never considered possible to end by September.
"I know it’s tempting fate to mention the idea, foolish to entertain it, mad to expect it, but the possibility of a landslide is now real.
And all this changes a huge amount. A Biden win would be a reprieve for the country; a Biden landslide would be an American miracle.
Unlike anything else, it would cauterize the wound of Trump, preventing further infection. It would say to posterity: we made this hideous mistake, for understandable reasons, but after four years, we saw what we did and decisively changed course. It would turn the Trump era of nihilism, tribalism and cruelty into a cautionary tale of extremism, illiberalism and, above all, failure."
Spot on from Sullivan. A clear rejection of the man and everything about him is what is needed for America to regain its self-respect.
From that extract it seems it is rooted in the notion that Trump is the problem rather than the Republican party as a whole.
The GOP is sick, Trump is only a symptom not the cause.
Lets be realistic, it is not even the GOP, it is a large chunk of the electorate and their beliefs. Trump mostly moved the GOP to where its voters are and were. His vulgar style will be replaced if he loses bigly, but the fake news and extreme division will continue.
Exactly, a huge chunk of GOP supporters would like segregation back on the statute books.
The GOP senior politicians, rather than trying to lead the people away from that view instead nudge and wink and coddle the racists.
Trump won the Nom by getting rid of the nudge and wink part. And my pick for 2024 Tom Cotton is primed and ready to repeat.
I think it's simply wrong to say that a huge chunk of the GOP are racist and laughable to say that they want resegregation, as Alistair says.
Rather I think that noneoftheabove is more on the right track: Trump attracted the disaffected white (particularly male working class) vote, including most of those with unacceptable views on race and immigrants, to participate in the GOP primaries and to vote for him in the GE.
Through the primary process, this has certainly changed the balance of representation of the GOP at the federal level, with many of the new faces more in the Trump mold. So the face of the GOP has changed, undoubtedly. But I doubt very much that that is an irreversible change.
Apart from Trump Jr., who can generate that passion amongst disaffected, white, poorly educated males? And will the GOP remain supine to Jr taking over the mantle if they are massacred in November? My answers are no-one, and no.
My conclusion is that, yes, the GOP is very sick atm. It needs to lose very, very badly in the Senate and the House, because the current representatives in those bodies have abrogated their responsibility to the American electorate to be the checks and balances to a corrupt, destructive President. But if it does, it will reshape itself away from Trumpism and back towards its underlying philosophies. And if it does, it will regain most of the members it has lost, and much of the Independent vote. This will take a little while, but not as long as many on here think. 2 cycles? 3 at most.
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, a la LadyG's 'reasonable worst case' rule of thumb. I'd have expected media chatter if it was all go for November, given the leakyness of everything else in government. Having said that, if I was in charge I'd certainly want to manage expectations and keep schtum even if everything was going well.
Double-blind means it can't really leak.
It is a case of there being no news until there is news. That news can either be a successful trial, a failure of a trial, or a failure due to problems within the trial (eg side effects). That the latter failure hasn't occured is good news, but until the trial ends we won't know if it has been successful or a failure.
Back in June I heard one eminent talking head state that the more effective the vaccine the earlier it's efficacy would reach statistical significance.
So it was possible that we would hear in September that it was effective, if it was very effective, but if it was only partially effective then it would take longer for the signal to emerge from the statistical noise.
Indeed but by the summer it was already said that as the prevalence of the virus within the UK had been reduced so much then the trial was not expected to end before November, as the virus was too low in the UK to have as many cases happen.
There have been further trials launched overseas, but I believe they were launched later so were never considered possible to end by September.
"the virus was too low in the UK to have as many cases happen."
Just looking at the top of the Guardian's page, who would you say is the more Orange of the two? I'd say Biden is more a traditional Orange colour while Trump is a bit more on the blood Orange variety:
"Attendees at Monday’s rally in Sanford, Florida, will be asked to sign a waiver acknowledging Covid-19 risks, according to the event’s registration page, and waive their right to sue Trump or the venue if they contract the virus."
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I'd say 40%+. You have reminded me I need to give a full explanation why (yes, all the posts this morning have not been the full explanation...)
Did you take advantage of my Betfair Trump EV tip ? If those are your assessment of the odds, it looks pretty good value.
FWIW, 15% seems more likely to me, as I don’t believe the polling is that far out. And that’s somewhere near calling a single dice roll correct. If life weren’t so uncertain at the moment, I’d probably bet a great deal more than an have on the outcome.
The Sweden model - of which there is constant mis-reporting in the press and by many here I am afraid - might have worked here if the Government had set strict, simple rules from day one of the end of lockdown.
But they didn't, they've been all over the place.
I will repeat this again:
Mandatory masks Rule of six outdoors only All pubs and bars closed in the evening
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
Technically it is triple blinding if the statisticians being fed results by the researchers don't know who is who either.
As to "What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner," the future is unknowable. It really is. Everyone in the world except the sociopathic doomsayers has all the motivation in the world to jolly us along with "Yes, we are nearly there" to prevent unrest, keep the shareholders happy etc, and I'd expect them to say what they are saying quite irrespective of their actual expectations. Compare the mask situation back in the spring: very highly respected medics are now admitting that they lied to us for the common good by saying masks don't help the public, when actually they help plenty and the plan was to stop a run on them.
Indeed there are people trying to seek optimism. But as for the trials I've not seen any sign that the end of the trial has been delayed. Indeed with cases increasing its possible that the end of the trial could come sooner since it relies upon getting enough 'events' and when there is little presence of the virus in the community there are little opportunities for events.
As to masks I think they genuinely didn't realise cloth masks would help. They could have advised cloth masks much quicker, since they don't come from medical stocks. Medical grade masks absolutely they wanted to hold onto but then that's continued too.
Certainly the mood music in the media seems to have changed imo over the last few months from 'hang on until the vaccine' to 'this is the new normal, a vaccine won't be a magic bullet'. Just uninformed speculation, or is there information out there?
On the mask thing, it's an unescapable conclusion: either the public health professionals were lying to our faces, or they are incompetent. Look at the prevalence of mask wearing in Asia following SARs, it seemed obvious even as a layperson they might be onto something. And of course, there are photos of face coverings being used in the Spanish Flu outbreak. I'm not convinced that the benefit of masks is a new breakthrough.
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, a la LadyG's 'reasonable worst case' rule of thumb. I'd have expected media chatter if it was all go for November, given the leakyness of everything else in government. Having said that, if I was in charge I'd certainly want to manage expectations and keep schtum even if everything was going well.
Double-blind means it can't really leak.
It is a case of there being no news until there is news. That news can either be a successful trial, a failure of a trial, or a failure due to problems within the trial (eg side effects). That the latter failure hasn't occured is good news, but until the trial ends we won't know if it has been successful or a failure.
Yes, the whole point of a double-blind trial is that no-one involved knows who got which treatment, until after the results have been compiled.
There will be a data monitor team who do this, and they’re not involved in the medical aspects of the trial.
At the end, the two teams meet up and hand the data to the science team so they can produce their conclusions. Before then, no-one knows anything so we won’t see leaks.
I’m not sure that quite true. Some of the trials are single blinded, for instance. But I think a leak is unlikely ahead of the election, as the companies involved are well aware of the political stakes. Pfizer’s trial (slightly controversially) has several interim looks at the evidence, so might be the most likely to let information out.
Just looking at the top of the Guardian's page, who would you say is the more Orange of the two? I'd say Biden is more a traditional Orange colour while Trump is a bit more on the blood Orange variety:
"Attendees at Monday’s rally in Sanford, Florida, will be asked to sign a waiver acknowledging Covid-19 risks, according to the event’s registration page, and waive their right to sue Trump or the venue if they contract the virus."
Nice touch from Team Trump.
Standard Trump practice. I think this applies to his White House events, too.
The problem with this Government is its governing by opinion poll. They don't make opinion, they follow it. This is why they leak ideas to the press and see how the public responds.
Maybe that works for Brexit.
The problem is that in a pandemic it doesn't because if people don't follow the rules, or ignore the advice, people die. This is the wrong Government with the wrong leadership in the wrong time.
Yes, this government has been shown up as completely out of their depth. A unfortunate side effect of Brexit, itself a product of years of drip-drop dogwhistle racism and anti-EU propaganda from the right wing press. We are where we are I guess.
I'm not even convinced the eventual death-toll would have been much different under the alternatives, but consistent messaging, basic leadership, a clearly articulated vision for how we move forward. Not really too much to ask I'd have thought.
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
Technically it is triple blinding if the statisticians being fed results by the researchers don't know who is who either.
As to "What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner," the future is unknowable. It really is. Everyone in the world except the sociopathic doomsayers has all the motivation in the world to jolly us along with "Yes, we are nearly there" to prevent unrest, keep the shareholders happy etc, and I'd expect them to say what they are saying quite irrespective of their actual expectations. Compare the mask situation back in the spring: very highly respected medics are now admitting that they lied to us for the common good by saying masks don't help the public, when actually they help plenty and the plan was to stop a run on them.
Indeed there are people trying to seek optimism. But as for the trials I've not seen any sign that the end of the trial has been delayed. Indeed with cases increasing its possible that the end of the trial could come sooner since it relies upon getting enough 'events' and when there is little presence of the virus in the community there are little opportunities for events.
As to masks I think they genuinely didn't realise cloth masks would help. They could have advised cloth masks much quicker, since they don't come from medical stocks. Medical grade masks absolutely they wanted to hold onto but then that's continued too.
Certainly the mood music in the media seems to have changed imo over the last few months from 'hang on until the vaccine' to 'this is the new normal, a vaccine won't be a magic bullet'. Just uninformed speculation, or is there information out there?
On the mask thing, it's an unescapable conclusion: either the public health professionals were lying to our faces, or they are incompetent. Look at the prevalence of mask wearing in Asia following SARs, it seemed obvious even as a layperson they might be onto something. And of course, there are photos of face coverings being used in the Spanish Flu outbreak. I'm not convinced that the benefit of masks is a new breakthrough.
It’s not - but it is true that the actual hard science available on the effectiveness of masks against airborne virus was very patchy indeed prior to this pandemic. Added to which there was no conclusive evidence early on about aerosol spread of Covid (though several suggestive cases). That has changed significantly over the last six months.
I don’t think they were actually lying, but just as with testing, deeply unwilling to consider anything not conclusively proven. It was utterly stupid, though, to say outright that masks were ineffective, as they simply didn’t have evidence for that, either. (And as you might have noticed, I’ve advocated for mask usage from quite early on.)
Correct Horse Battery: and Universities on line, supply lap tops to those who havew not got them.Better still suspend University education fot one year, there is no educational harm done. Many went to Uni after the war at 25 - 26 years of age, they had been in the services. Some us got degrees and Masters by correspondence courses, so no need to go anywhere..
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I'd say 40%+. You have reminded me I need to give a full explanation why (yes, all the posts this morning have not been the full explanation...)
Did you take advantage of my Betfair Trump EV tip ? If those are your assessment of the odds, it looks pretty good value.
FWIW, 15% seems more likely to me, as I don’t believe the polling is that far out. And that’s somewhere near calling a single dice roll correct. If life weren’t so uncertain at the moment, I’d probably bet a great deal more than an have on the outcome.
I did so thank you. If it comes off, I owe you some wine (or would you prefer whisky given the outcome?)
Interesting to read 'MD's article in the notorious right wing rag, Private Eye this week. Focused on the secondary health effects of lockdown, and generally suggesting that the ongoing restrictions are counter productive.
Now we've reached October and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the vaccine cavalry isn't around the corner, I'm increasingly coming round to the Toby Young pov (yes, I know he's a narcissistic prick, but even a stopped clock...)
What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner. For months now we've been told November is the likely time to have the trials end (and they're double-blinded until then so we can't get premature info) and that is still what we're being told. Ie by this time next month we could have a working vaccine.
Some of the vaccine is already produced and ready to be rolled out. We are simply waiting on the double-blind trial to end.
And to one extent 'no news is good news' on the vaccine front, since if the trial had clearly failed or had bad side effects the trial would have been brought to a premature halt already.
I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, a la LadyG's 'reasonable worst case' rule of thumb. I'd have expected media chatter if it was all go for November, given the leakyness of everything else in government. Having said that, if I was in charge I'd certainly want to manage expectations and keep schtum even if everything was going well.
Double-blind means it can't really leak.
It is a case of there being no news until there is news. That news can either be a successful trial, a failure of a trial, or a failure due to problems within the trial (eg side effects). That the latter failure hasn't occured is good news, but until the trial ends we won't know if it has been successful or a failure.
Back in June I heard one eminent talking head state that the more effective the vaccine the earlier it's efficacy would reach statistical significance.
So it was possible that we would hear in September that it was effective, if it was very effective, but if it was only partially effective then it would take longer for the signal to emerge from the statistical noise.
Indeed but by the summer it was already said that as the prevalence of the virus within the UK had been reduced so much then the trial was not expected to end before November, as the virus was too low in the UK to have as many cases happen.
There have been further trials launched overseas, but I believe they were launched later so were never considered possible to end by September.
I heard these statements back when the trials were already operating in South Africa and the US for that reason, with Brazil and Mexico talked about as additional countries. Low prevalence of the virus in the UK over the summer did not delay the Phase III trials.
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I'd say 40%+. You have reminded me I need to give a full explanation why (yes, all the posts this morning have not been the full explanation...)
Ok thanks. So slightly less than evens. I just wanted to pin you down because the following 2 statements are different -
(i) Mr Ed is predicting a Trump win. He thinks it is more likely than a Biden win.
(ii) Mr Ed thinks a Biden win is more likely but believes Trump has a great chance.
I have done a quick tally of the Electoral votes and by placing North Carolina for Biden, he just makes it. But one suspects N C will finally go Trump, so "four more years". These are such happy days!!!! Trump and Brexit. God, time to get the next rocket to the Moon
Saw that. He's like a tone deaf karaoke singer pulling out all the old classics that have been performed less badly a hundred times before.
No doubt "two cheeks of the same arse" will soon make an appearance. I have long sensed that if offered the position of leading RIGHT WING populist, George would accept in a heartbeat. Brexit. Now BritNat. Bet he wants Trump to win.
Yes, this government has been shown up as completely out of their depth. A unfortunate side effect of Brexit, itself a product of years of drip-drop dogwhistle racism and anti-EU propaganda from the right wing press. We are where we are I guess.
I'm not even convinced the eventual death-toll would have been much different under the alternatives, but consistent messaging, basic leadership, a clearly articulated vision for how we move forward. Not really too much to ask I'd have thought.
Just imagine how much worse it would be if Dom hadn't set up his Mission Control to prevent any avoidable comms fuckups...
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I sensed you`ve been resisting a reposte to Mr Ed all morning. Couldn`t help it in the end could you?
- We need to keep a line of communication open, me and Ed.
Exactly @Kinablu, this site is like Lisbon or Switzerland in World War II
More of a Casablanca vibe.
Of all the comment boards on all the websites in all the world, she logs onto mine.
What does Trumpism leave behind once Trump is no longer there?
What does Brexit leave behind once BoZo is no longer there?
Brexit is owned by the Conservative party, not just Boris Johnson. I guess the GOP owns Trump in the same way, though. It has moved a long way from George Bush, let alone Ronald Reagan, that is for sure! But I suppose you could say the same about the Tories, given that in the space of just a few years they have abandoned business, farmers, the rule of law, the Union and most of what else they used to claim to stand for.
The Tories still win farmers and rural areas (even in Scotland) ad since their foundation the Tories have always been the party of the landed gentry and rural areas in terms of core support.
Indeed the Tories emerged in the 17th century even before the Act of Union as the most pro Monarchy and pro Anglican Church party with its core support amongst the landed gentry, the Whigs (the descendants of today's LDs) were the party of trade and the merchant classes and nonconformist and Presbyterian Protestants.
People who are involved with trade and the merchant classes and nonconformist and Presbyterian Protestants really ought to come back to the Lib Dems then. Today´s Conservative Party has no time for them.
But Mr HY, how it is possible for the Whigs to be the descendents of today´s LDs? I think you are a bit confused today....
There is evidence from Yougov the most free market voters do indeed now vote for Ed Davey's LDs by more than they are voting for Boris Johnson's Tories.
Indeed one recent Yougov poll had only 44% of LD voters thinking people whose jobs are unsustainable due to coronavirus should be supported in their current jobs by the state until they can return to them. That was not only less than the 66% of Labour voters who thought that but also less than the 47% of Tory voters who thought that. https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1313885499086565376?s=20
(Apologies, I meant the Whigs were the ancestors of the Liberal Democrats, not the descendants you are right).
To be honest the best thing Labour has probably done - maybe gone under the radar - is saying we won't be joining the EEA.
Personally I support EEA but I can see why at this current time anything that can be linked to FOM is political suicide in the red wall.
Perhaps in a couple of years EEA will be more appealing.
Starmer has also ruled out No Deal though unlike Boris which means he will certainly have to concede to the EU on state aid and maybe fisheries too
Fisheries don't matter, why is this an issue that is constantly brought up?
It may not matter for Labour beyond a few target seats like Hastings and Rye and Truro and Falmouth, it does matter for the Tories now as most fishing ports have Tory MPs
LOLs on this one. Every President's policy since the early 90s have done exactly that. There are plenty of very good reasons to criticize Trump and his policies, but all of those are diluted by this nonesense. No other President would have done better - not Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, or Obama.
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I'd say 40%+. You have reminded me I need to give a full explanation why (yes, all the posts this morning have not been the full explanation...)
Did you take advantage of my Betfair Trump EV tip ? If those are your assessment of the odds, it looks pretty good value.
FWIW, 15% seems more likely to me, as I don’t believe the polling is that far out. And that’s somewhere near calling a single dice roll correct. If life weren’t so uncertain at the moment, I’d probably bet a great deal more than an have on the outcome.
I did so thank you. If it comes off, I owe you some wine (or would you prefer whisky given the outcome?)
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
If the biggest swing against Trump turns out to be the seniors (evidence suggest it might well be so) then the digital strategy won't be looking so smart
To be honest the best thing Labour has probably done - maybe gone under the radar - is saying we won't be joining the EEA.
Personally I support EEA but I can see why at this current time anything that can be linked to FOM is political suicide in the red wall.
Perhaps in a couple of years EEA will be more appealing.
Starmer has also ruled out No Deal though unlike Boris which means he will certainly have to concede to the EU on state aid and maybe fisheries too
Fisheries don't matter, why is this an issue that is constantly brought up?
It may not matter for Labour beyond a few target seats like Hastings and Rye and Truro and Falmouth, it does matter for the Tories now as most fishing ports have Tory MPs
Why does something that's less than 1% of the UK's GDP matter to anyone?
I have done a quick tally of the Electoral votes and by placing North Carolina for Biden, he just makes it. But one suspects N C will finally go Trump, so "four more years". These are such happy days!!!! Trump and Brexit. God, time to get the next rocket to the Moon
Biden does not need NC. Just by holding the Clinton states and taking MI, WI and PA, he is over the line. God knows what you are counting
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
If the biggest swing against Trump turns out to be the seniors (evidence suggest it might well be so) then the digital strategy won't be looking so smart
Most people Ive met who believe in bonkers theories from online tend to be over 55, whilst the youngsters may use social media more, they also seem to be better at evaluating who is giving the message and why.
What does Trumpism leave behind once Trump is no longer there?
What does Brexit leave behind once BoZo is no longer there?
Brexit is owned by the Conservative party, not just Boris Johnson. I guess the GOP owns Trump in the same way, though. It has moved a long way from George Bush, let alone Ronald Reagan, that is for sure! But I suppose you could say the same about the Tories, given that in the space of just a few years they have abandoned business, farmers, the rule of law, the Union and most of what else they used to claim to stand for.
The Tories still win farmers and rural areas (even in Scotland) ad since their foundation the Tories have always been the party of the landed gentry and rural areas in terms of core support.
Indeed the Tories emerged in the 17th century even before the Act of Union as the most pro Monarchy and pro Anglican Church party with its core support amongst the landed gentry, the Whigs (the descendants of today's LDs) were the party of trade and the merchant classes and nonconformist and Presbyterian Protestants.
People who are involved with trade and the merchant classes and nonconformist and Presbyterian Protestants really ought to come back to the Lib Dems then. Today´s Conservative Party has no time for them.
But Mr HY, how it is possible for the Whigs to be the descendents of today´s LDs? I think you are a bit confused today....
There is evidence from Yougov the most free market voters do indeed now vote for Ed Davey's LDs by more than they are voting for Boris Johnson's Tories.
Indeed one recent Yougov poll had only 44% of LD voters thinking people whose jobs are unsustainable due to coronavirus should be supported in their current jobs by the state until they can return to them. That was not only less than the 66% of Labour voters who thought that but also less than the 47% of Tory voters who thought that. https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1313885499086565376?s=20
(Apologies, I meant the Whigs were the ancestors of the Liberal Democrats, not the descendants you are right).
It is yet another terrible yougov question. The answer is absolutely without doubt both of them, and the political question is how much support there should be.
So it does not mean "only 44% of LD voters thinking people whose jobs are unsustainable due to coronavirus should be supported in their current jobs by the state until they can return to them." It means LD voters are evenly split on which of the two are the bigger priority between the two options. Id be amazed if more than 20% of LD voters think employees under threat should get zero state support to keep them in their current jobs, probably that number is sub 10%.
.Just on the article, a few things to point out (and David is right, money is not everything, ask Mike Bloomberg and how much he spent for the Primaries) re David's premise:
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
2. Correction: Trump has not been outspending Biden significantly on digital expenditure. The gap between Biden and Trump has shrank dramatically in recent weeks and Trump is spending a significant proportion of his digital spending in California and New York looking for fundraising from wealthy donors - expenditure in New York and California will not swing the election. In the swing states they're spending similar amounts. See this article from yesterday which is more up to date than the one from a month ago.
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Your first sentence is only true if you consider recent weeks. Trump's campaign has been outspending Biden's on digital for a long, long time. Yes, Biden has caught up in recent weeks but they are also starting from two fundamentally different approaches - Trump took a long-term view to use digital advertising to retain his subscribers. In effect, he is taking the view (which, ironically, is what you see in the pay tv industry) that the best way to success is to retain as many voters as you can. Biden's campaign went for the more traditional route of TV, which is what Hillary Clinton did. It's spend on digital appears to be more from the view of "we have cash, let's spend it and we're slightly worried about where Trump is spending" but there appears to be no fundamental strategy. This is why I mention the Google ad spend being wasted - Google is not a brand building advertising medium, it's the modern Yellow Pages
The irony is that, for all the talk that Trump's campaign methods are chaotic and wrong, the Democrats are now switching tactics to mirror the Republicans in two areas - more digital advertising and on the ground, door to door knocking.
Considering recent weeks is what matters. A lot of digital targetting is about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) which is critical especially in US elections. So Trump having targetted digital ads months or a year ago, especially to New Yorkers and Californians fundraising, is not going to have any effect whatsoever on GOTV efforts. GOTV is very, very time sensitive.
Traditional advertising like TV advertising - and Google falls within this too - is about building up support, whereas GOTV is about getting the support you have built up out to vote. As such there's no irony that the Democrats spent traditionally earlier and are now increasing their online presence because that is a smart strategy - build up support then get it out to vote.
You're right that Trump is trying to keep as many of his voters as he can but quite frankly that is not enough. Trump won an extremely narrow ballot last time with three key states within a fraction of one percent - and with his opponents turnout down on normal. He simply has no slack to play with, without gaining new voters. If he only keeps some of his voters he still loses. Even if he holds all his voters he still loses if his opponents turnout is up. He needs to do more than that and there is no sign of that happening.
On current trends it would not surprise me if we find that by the end of the month the Democrats are outspending the Republicans online, since they have a bigger warchest and are clearly seeking to improve their presence online.
That might be the case re spending online in the run up to the election although it depends on how much the PACs chuck in as well.
Obama was excellent at the GOTV stuff not only because of digital but mainly because of the community volunteers on the ground who got people to vote. In that, he had the crucial infrastructure of the African-American churches and also of the Hispanic organisation. He also retained enough of the support of blue-collar traditional Democrats to get him over the line, helped by the fact that Romney was seen as a wealthy plutocrat (and his comments, to me, were the equivalent of the Deplorables comment by Hillary).
I think it is wrong to assume he won't add new blocks and his strategy makes sense. First, he recognised that many of his voters in 2016 were not traditional voters and / or switchers. He therefore needed to keep them locked in as they were prone to switching. Hence the constant rallies, digital adverts, stoking up the "us versus them". Second, to get some of the conservatives back on board who didn't vote for him, which is where the SC nominations came in (and, for all the Lincoln Project adverts, a lot of conservatives were disgusted with the Democrats' tactics during the Kavanaugh hearings where Harris was involved). Third, to have the economy doing well enough where people who are not really political but think their lives are doing fine will vote for him or at least not come out. That has been upended by the pandemic but there is still an argument to say people realise this is an one-off and who do they trust more / are they more well off (which was why I cited the Gallup poll).
There is a fourth, which is to undermine the Democrats' traditional strength in Black / Hispanic votes. A prediction I will make now is one of the major shocks to the Democrats will be how their Black voting base fell significantly from 2016 due to abstention and with a small but vital shift to the Republicans. I will also predict that Trump will make gains amongst the Hispanics.
If those things line up, he will get re-elected. I think they will.
What % chance do you give him - right now as we speak - of being reelected?
Context being, Betfair is 33%, 538 is 15%, I am 10%.
Where are you?
I'd say 40%+. You have reminded me I need to give a full explanation why (yes, all the posts this morning have not been the full explanation...)
Did you take advantage of my Betfair Trump EV tip ? If those are your assessment of the odds, it looks pretty good value.
FWIW, 15% seems more likely to me, as I don’t believe the polling is that far out. And that’s somewhere near calling a single dice roll correct. If life weren’t so uncertain at the moment, I’d probably bet a great deal more than an have on the outcome.
I did so thank you. If it comes off, I owe you some wine (or would you prefer whisky given the outcome?)
Whisky, I think, if not bleach.
I suspect I might have the Police round my house if I start ordering such large quantities of bleach
Because the alternative is what? We are doing what we can. It’s not enough, it’s not “working” to the extent that deaths are going to increase, the economic consequences are catastrophic but there are no better choices. We just have to get through this.
If Covid continues to be a serious issue, there will surely have to come a point when next May's scheduled elections will have to be further postponed.
If Covid continues to be a serious issue, there will surely have to come a point when next May's scheduled elections will have to be further postponed.
Making them all postal would be doable. I doubt there was time to do that before the ones this year.
If Covid continues to be a serious issue, there will surely have to come a point when next May's scheduled elections will have to be further postponed.
Go all postal would be the answer, there is nothing worse than extending councilors tenure when many want to retire or vacancies need filling. The democratic mandates need renewing.
Because the alternative is what? We are doing what we can. It’s not enough, it’s not “working” to the extent that deaths are going to increase, the economic consequences are catastrophic but there are no better choices. We just have to get through this.
Agree. The govt is pummelled by a pincer movement between those who shout "too little, too late" and those who scream "too much, too soon". Anyone who thinks "political battles are won in the centre" may have pause for thought.
14:45 Experts believe that the restrictions in Madrid are applied late: "The virus has come too far", by Pilar Bayón. Since this Saturday, Madrid has been experiencing its return to a state of alarm, the second in less than a year due to the coronavirus, after a political scuffle between the Sánchez government and the executive of Isabel Díaz Ayuso that has led to a judicial fight and uncertainty between the citizens. The restrictions taken are, according to the experts consulted by RTVE.es, necessary to stop the contagion in the Community, although they consider that the discrepancies have delayed the effective fight against the pandemic.
To be honest the best thing Labour has probably done - maybe gone under the radar - is saying we won't be joining the EEA.
Personally I support EEA but I can see why at this current time anything that can be linked to FOM is political suicide in the red wall.
Perhaps in a couple of years EEA will be more appealing.
Starmer has also ruled out No Deal though unlike Boris which means he will certainly have to concede to the EU on state aid and maybe fisheries too
Fisheries don't matter, why is this an issue that is constantly brought up?
It may not matter for Labour beyond a few target seats like Hastings and Rye and Truro and Falmouth, it does matter for the Tories now as most fishing ports have Tory MPs
Why does something that's less than 1% of the UK's GDP matter to anyone?
I have met a fair number of commercial fishermen. They seem to think nothing of hoovering the sea clean of fish and resent anyone who stops them doing so. At present that is the EU. If HMG takes over fishing controls they will hate HMG.
Just remember why fish stocks collapsed massively before fishing controls were put in place in the 70s
Because the alternative is what? We are doing what we can. It’s not enough, it’s not “working” to the extent that deaths are going to increase, the economic consequences are catastrophic but there are no better choices. We just have to get through this.
Good communication would be a start, unless you're a Tory fanboy you must acknowledge the communication has been utterly piss poor.
To be honest the best thing Labour has probably done - maybe gone under the radar - is saying we won't be joining the EEA.
Personally I support EEA but I can see why at this current time anything that can be linked to FOM is political suicide in the red wall.
Perhaps in a couple of years EEA will be more appealing.
Starmer has also ruled out No Deal though unlike Boris which means he will certainly have to concede to the EU on state aid and maybe fisheries too
Fisheries don't matter, why is this an issue that is constantly brought up?
It may not matter for Labour beyond a few target seats like Hastings and Rye and Truro and Falmouth, it does matter for the Tories now as most fishing ports have Tory MPs
Why does something that's less than 1% of the UK's GDP matter to anyone?
Less than .1%. bEcAuSe We cOMManD thE SeAS ChB.
It matters to like, ten MPs and the fragile sense of ego that we have about once being a maritime power. Meanwhile, the industries we're actually good at, and dare I say are "world beating" in are mostly high value manufacturing and services which will all be buggered if we decide that fish is our breaking point. I struggle to believe that Tory MPs are as mad as HYUFD on this. But I'm ever expecting to be surprised in a bad way.
Difficult to answer fairly. The government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are no easy answers.
Johnson wanted to be Prime Minister, and has spent his entire life backstabbing in order to enjoying the grace and favour accomodation, the servants and the chauffeur driven Jaguars, so I have little sympathy when he has to endure the endless criticism.
And for whoever is off- topicing me- here's another for you!
Because the alternative is what? We are doing what we can. It’s not enough, it’s not “working” to the extent that deaths are going to increase, the economic consequences are catastrophic but there are no better choices. We just have to get through this.
Agree. The govt is pummelled by a pincer movement between those who shout "too little, too late" and those who scream "too much, too soon". Anyone who thinks "political battles are won in the centre" may have pause for thought.
It’s the old joke isn’t it? The problem with being middle of the road is that you get hit on both sides.
Because the alternative is what? We are doing what we can. It’s not enough, it’s not “working” to the extent that deaths are going to increase, the economic consequences are catastrophic but there are no better choices. We just have to get through this.
Looking forward to this pragmatic assessment being applied north of Gretna.
To be honest the best thing Labour has probably done - maybe gone under the radar - is saying we won't be joining the EEA.
Personally I support EEA but I can see why at this current time anything that can be linked to FOM is political suicide in the red wall.
Perhaps in a couple of years EEA will be more appealing.
Starmer has also ruled out No Deal though unlike Boris which means he will certainly have to concede to the EU on state aid and maybe fisheries too
Fisheries don't matter, why is this an issue that is constantly brought up?
It may not matter for Labour beyond a few target seats like Hastings and Rye and Truro and Falmouth, it does matter for the Tories now as most fishing ports have Tory MPs
Why does something that's less than 1% of the UK's GDP matter to anyone?
I have met a fair number of commercial fishermen. They seem to think nothing of hoovering the sea clean of fish and resent anyone who stops them doing so. At present that is the EU. If HMG takes over fishing controls they will hate HMG.
Just remember why fish stocks collapsed massively before fishing controls were put in place in the 70s
This is, incidentally, the other thing. People have this bizarre view of fishing being a one eyed man on a boat shouting "Arrr that's a good catch". There are indeed many small operators out there. However the majority of the UK catch is allocated to larger conglomerates who have a very short-termist instinct on fishing. This seems to be less of an issue in farming, probably because the UK is pretty crap for intensive agriculture so it's mostly mad, glorious bastards who do it.
I have done a quick tally of the Electoral votes and by placing North Carolina for Biden, he just makes it. But one suspects N C will finally go Trump, so "four more years". These are such happy days!!!! Trump and Brexit. God, time to get the next rocket to the Moon
what on earth predictions are you making that you think North Carolina is the tipping point?
Biden is in the White House on Michigan-Pennsylvania-Wisconsin. He leads each state by 7% at the moment.
Because the alternative is what? We are doing what we can. It’s not enough, it’s not “working” to the extent that deaths are going to increase, the economic consequences are catastrophic but there are no better choices. We just have to get through this.
Looking forward to this pragmatic assessment being applied north of Gretna.
There is plenty of room to quibble about the details and there is plenty in Sturgeon's latest fantasy grotto to quibble about but the general thrust is just inevitable. I seem to remember a more than averagely competent politician explaining TINA. That's where we are.
What does Trumpism leave behind once Trump is no longer there?
What does Brexit leave behind once BoZo is no longer there?
Brexit is owned by the Conservative party, not just Boris Johnson. I guess the GOP owns Trump in the same way, though. It has moved a long way from George Bush, let alone Ronald Reagan, that is for sure! But I suppose you could say the same about the Tories, given that in the space of just a few years they have abandoned business, farmers, the rule of law, the Union and most of what else they used to claim to stand for.
The Tories still win farmers and rural areas (even in Scotland) ad since their foundation the Tories have always been the party of the landed gentry and rural areas in terms of core support.
Indeed the Tories emerged in the 17th century even before the Act of Union as the most pro Monarchy and pro Anglican Church party with its core support amongst the landed gentry, the Whigs (the descendants of today's LDs) were the party of trade and the merchant classes and nonconformist and Presbyterian Protestants.
People who are involved with trade and the merchant classes and nonconformist and Presbyterian Protestants really ought to come back to the Lib Dems then. Today´s Conservative Party has no time for them.
But Mr HY, how it is possible for the Whigs to be the descendents of today´s LDs? I think you are a bit confused today....
There is evidence from Yougov the most free market voters do indeed now vote for Ed Davey's LDs by more than they are voting for Boris Johnson's Tories.
Indeed one recent Yougov poll had only 44% of LD voters thinking people whose jobs are unsustainable due to coronavirus should be supported in their current jobs by the state until they can return to them. That was not only less than the 66% of Labour voters who thought that but also less than the 47% of Tory voters who thought that. https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1313885499086565376?s=20
(Apologies, I meant the Whigs were the ancestors of the Liberal Democrats, not the descendants you are right).
I am glad we have got that sorted out, young HY. They do say that it is a wise child that knows his own father.....
Some of the Lib Dem ancestors got vamped by the Tories, others got enslaved by miserable socialists. But it would be really good if they all came back into the mainstream, and we had a proper Liberal Government again.
A lot of PB Tories were reminiscing fondly about the recent Coalition Government, only the other day.... The "Conservative" Government we have now is no answer to any of our problems.
Because the alternative is what? We are doing what we can. It’s not enough, it’s not “working” to the extent that deaths are going to increase, the economic consequences are catastrophic but there are no better choices. We just have to get through this.
Good communication would be a start, unless you're a Tory fanboy you must acknowledge the communication has been utterly piss poor.
Sure, and there is a lot that we could and should be doing better. We have made lots of mistakes and some of those mistakes have cost lives. The failure to quarantine all international travellers from the beginning of March comes to mind, as does the ridiculous App, the obsession with accuracy in the testing as opposed to speed, I could go on all day. But prats like Hodges pretending that there is some simple answer which the government is just ignoring are just being, well, prats.
What does Trumpism leave behind once Trump is no longer there?
What does Brexit leave behind once BoZo is no longer there?
Brexit is owned by the Conservative party, not just Boris Johnson. I guess the GOP owns Trump in the same way, though. It has moved a long way from George Bush, let alone Ronald Reagan, that is for sure! But I suppose you could say the same about the Tories, given that in the space of just a few years they have abandoned business, farmers, the rule of law, the Union and most of what else they used to claim to stand for.
The Tories still win farmers and rural areas (even in Scotland) ad since their foundation the Tories have always been the party of the landed gentry and rural areas in terms of core support.
Indeed the Tories emerged in the 17th century even before the Act of Union as the most pro Monarchy and pro Anglican Church party with its core support amongst the landed gentry, the Whigs (the descendants of today's LDs) were the party of trade and the merchant classes and nonconformist and Presbyterian Protestants.
People who are involved with trade and the merchant classes and nonconformist and Presbyterian Protestants really ought to come back to the Lib Dems then. Today´s Conservative Party has no time for them.
But Mr HY, how it is possible for the Whigs to be the descendents of today´s LDs? I think you are a bit confused today....
There is evidence from Yougov the most free market voters do indeed now vote for Ed Davey's LDs by more than they are voting for Boris Johnson's Tories.
Indeed one recent Yougov poll had only 44% of LD voters thinking people whose jobs are unsustainable due to coronavirus should be supported in their current jobs by the state until they can return to them. That was not only less than the 66% of Labour voters who thought that but also less than the 47% of Tory voters who thought that. https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1313885499086565376?s=20
(Apologies, I meant the Whigs were the ancestors of the Liberal Democrats, not the descendants you are right).
I am glad we have got that sorted out, young HY. They do say that it is a wise child that knows his own father.....
Some of the Lib Dem ancestors got vamped by the Tories, others got enslaved by miserable socialists. But it would be really good if they all came back into the mainstream, and we had a proper Liberal Government again.
A lot of PB Tories were reminiscing fondly about the recent Coalition Government, only the other day.... The "Conservative" Government we have now is no answer to any of our problems.
Ed Davey is certainly closer to Clegg and Cameron than Boris and Starmer are ideologically and Davey of course served in Cameron's Coalition government unlike Boris
I have done a quick tally of the Electoral votes and by placing North Carolina for Biden, he just makes it. But one suspects N C will finally go Trump, so "four more years". These are such happy days!!!! Trump and Brexit. God, time to get the next rocket to the Moon
what on earth predictions are you making that you think North Carolina is the tipping point?
Biden is in the White House on Michigan-Pennsylvania-Wisconsin. He leads each state by 7% at the moment.
Not quite, Biden leads in Pennsylvania by 7.1% on average yes but in Michigan he has a slightly smaller average lead at 6.7% and in Wisconsin a significantly smaller average lead at 5.5%.
As Biden leads in Wisconsin by more than he leads in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa and Arizona, Wisconsin is now the key tipping point state as it was in 2016 when Trump won Wisconsin by slightly more than he won Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Comments
Council leaders may as well have held the pub doors open for people...
White liberal middle class parents voting for their own interests above all - who would have thought it.....?
The irony is, when they repealed it, they then realised that Asian-Americans were taking all the places because they were getting the highest grands.
As to "What makes you think that the vaccine isn't around the corner," the future is unknowable. It really is. Everyone in the world except the sociopathic doomsayers has all the motivation in the world to jolly us along with "Yes, we are nearly there" to prevent unrest, keep the shareholders happy etc, and I'd expect them to say what they are saying quite irrespective of their actual expectations. Compare the mask situation back in the spring: very highly respected medics are now admitting that they lied to us for the common good by saying masks don't help the public, when actually they help plenty and the plan was to stop a run on them.
But Mr HY, how it is possible for the Whigs to be the descendents of today´s LDs? I think you are a bit confused today....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkURz6H0I0I
It is a case of there being no news until there is news. That news can either be a successful trial, a failure of a trial, or a failure due to problems within the trial (eg side effects). That the latter failure hasn't occured is good news, but until the trial ends we won't know if it has been successful or a failure.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/09/trump-biden-debate-canceled-rally
Keir goes on the offensive.
So it was possible that we would hear in September that it was effective, if it was very effective, but if it was only partially effective then it would take longer for the signal to emerge from the statistical noise.
As to masks I think they genuinely didn't realise cloth masks would help. They could have advised cloth masks much quicker, since they don't come from medical stocks. Medical grade masks absolutely they wanted to hold onto but then that's continued too.
(i) Mr Ed is predicting a Trump win. He thinks it is more likely than a Biden win.
(ii) Mr Ed thinks a Biden win is more likely but believes Trump has a great chance.
And you are (ii). You are with @HYUFD.
There will be a data monitor team who do this, and they’re not involved in the medical aspects of the trial.
At the end, the two teams meet up and hand the data to the science team so they can produce their conclusions. Before then, no-one knows anything so we won’t see leaks.
Maybe that works for Brexit.
The problem is that in a pandemic it doesn't because if people don't follow the rules, or ignore the advice, people die. This is the wrong Government with the wrong leadership in the wrong time.
There have been further trials launched overseas, but I believe they were launched later so were never considered possible to end by September.
Personally I support EEA but I can see why at this current time anything that can be linked to FOM is political suicide in the red wall.
Perhaps in a couple of years EEA will be more appealing.
Rather I think that noneoftheabove is more on the right track: Trump attracted the disaffected white (particularly male working class) vote, including most of those with unacceptable views on race and immigrants, to participate in the GOP primaries and to vote for him in the GE.
Through the primary process, this has certainly changed the balance of representation of the GOP at the federal level, with many of the new faces more in the Trump mold. So the face of the GOP has changed, undoubtedly. But I doubt very much that that is an irreversible change.
Apart from Trump Jr., who can generate that passion amongst disaffected, white, poorly educated males? And will the GOP remain supine to Jr taking over the mantle if they are massacred in November? My answers are no-one, and no.
My conclusion is that, yes, the GOP is very sick atm. It needs to lose very, very badly in the Senate and the House, because the current representatives in those bodies have abrogated their responsibility to the American electorate to be the checks and balances to a corrupt, destructive President. But if it does, it will reshape itself away from Trumpism and back towards its underlying philosophies. And if it does, it will regain most of the members it has lost, and much of the Independent vote. This will take a little while, but not as long as many on here think. 2 cycles? 3 at most.
Shouldn't be a problem now. Try any campus!
https://twitter.com/Alliance4Unity/status/1314832636372754432?s=20
https://twitter.com/Alliance4Unity/status/1314334060144193538
Nice touch from Team Trump.
If those are your assessment of the odds, it looks pretty good value.
FWIW, 15% seems more likely to me, as I don’t believe the polling is that far out. And that’s somewhere near calling a single dice roll correct.
If life weren’t so uncertain at the moment, I’d probably bet a great deal more than an have on the outcome.
But they didn't, they've been all over the place.
I will repeat this again:
Mandatory masks
Rule of six outdoors only
All pubs and bars closed in the evening
He's like a tone deaf karaoke singer pulling out all the old classics that have been performed less badly a hundred times before.
On the mask thing, it's an unescapable conclusion: either the public health professionals were lying to our faces, or they are incompetent. Look at the prevalence of mask wearing in Asia following SARs, it seemed obvious even as a layperson they might be onto something. And of course, there are photos of face coverings being used in the Spanish Flu outbreak. I'm not convinced that the benefit of masks is a new breakthrough.
Some of the trials are single blinded, for instance. But I think a leak is unlikely ahead of the election, as the companies involved are well aware of the political stakes. Pfizer’s trial (slightly controversially) has several interim looks at the evidence, so might be the most likely to let information out.
I think this applies to his White House events, too.
I'm not even convinced the eventual death-toll would have been much different under the alternatives, but consistent messaging, basic leadership, a clearly articulated vision for how we move forward. Not really too much to ask I'd have thought.
I don’t think they were actually lying, but just as with testing, deeply unwilling to consider anything not conclusively proven. It was utterly stupid, though, to say outright that masks were ineffective, as they simply didn’t have evidence for that, either.
(And as you might have noticed, I’ve advocated for mask usage from quite early on.)
Ok, change of percentage changes: 60%+
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1314906907191193601
Indeed one recent Yougov poll had only 44% of LD voters thinking people whose jobs are unsustainable due to coronavirus should be supported in their current jobs by the state until they can return to them. That was not only less than the 66% of Labour voters who thought that but also less than the 47% of Tory voters who thought that.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1313885499086565376?s=20
(Apologies, I meant the Whigs were the ancestors of the Liberal Democrats, not the descendants you are right).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8825909/Fury-MPs-3-300-pay-rise-85-291-thousands-lose-jobs-Covid.html
Biden does not need NC. Just by holding the Clinton states and taking MI, WI and PA, he is over the line. God knows what you are counting
So it does not mean "only 44% of LD voters thinking people whose jobs are unsustainable due to coronavirus should be supported in their current jobs by the state until they can return to them." It means LD voters are evenly split on which of the two are the bigger priority between the two options. Id be amazed if more than 20% of LD voters think employees under threat should get zero state support to keep them in their current jobs, probably that number is sub 10%.
We are doing what we can. It’s not enough, it’s not “working” to the extent that deaths are going to increase, the economic consequences are catastrophic but there are no better choices. We just have to get through this.
Hodges is almost as big a nob as Owen Jones.
Though I expect machine supremacy isn’t very far off.
https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/508714147119644674
Just remember why fish stocks collapsed massively before fishing controls were put in place in the 70s
It matters to like, ten MPs and the fragile sense of ego that we have about once being a maritime power. Meanwhile, the industries we're actually good at, and dare I say are "world beating" in are mostly high value manufacturing and services which will all be buggered if we decide that fish is our breaking point. I struggle to believe that Tory MPs are as mad as HYUFD on this. But I'm ever expecting to be surprised in a bad way.
Johnson wanted to be Prime Minister, and has spent his entire life backstabbing in order to enjoying the grace and favour accomodation, the servants and the chauffeur driven Jaguars, so I have little sympathy when he has to endure the endless criticism.
And for whoever is off- topicing me- here's another for you!
Biden is in the White House on Michigan-Pennsylvania-Wisconsin. He leads each state by 7% at the moment.
Some of the Lib Dem ancestors got vamped by the Tories, others got enslaved by miserable socialists. But it would be really good if they all came back into the mainstream, and we had a proper Liberal Government again.
A lot of PB Tories were reminiscing fondly about the recent Coalition Government, only the other day.... The "Conservative" Government we have now is no answer to any of our problems.
As Biden leads in Wisconsin by more than he leads in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa and Arizona, Wisconsin is now the key tipping point state as it was in 2016 when Trump won Wisconsin by slightly more than he won Michigan and Pennsylvania.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_biden-6861.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_biden-6761.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_biden-6849.html